October 8, 2009

I ... stumbled across these comments in Ann Althouse's blog, regarding my skepticism of Sarah Palin's pregnancy stories. I deserve criticism on this and have aired it on this blog ... not because my doubts have been put to rest, but because I know I'm out on a limb and I know that means you take your fair share of whacks. But look at these comments, which Althouse engages with and certainly doesn't remove. I have a thick skin but really...

Go to the link to see what he selected from the comments to quote.

This comes with the territory. Some of it is even a little funny. I'm not complaining. But it does bear noting that on a widely read conservative blog, this stuff is routine. I think that's part of the GOP's problem. I also think that Althouse's engagement in the comments section and failure to remove any of these remarks is eloquent.

"Althouse engages"... "Althouse's engagement"... hey! That reminds me of the time he gratuitously mocked me for writing a blog post letting people know I'd gotten engaged. A peek into Andrew's psyche? Tied to his obsession with Palin's womb? Think about it.

Anyway, as many of you readers have seen time and time again, I have a very high tolerance for vigorous/rough/nasty speech in the comments here. (Some of it is very pro-male homosexuality!)

I rarely delete, and there is no way that my failure to delete indicates approval. I do sometimes participate in the comments, and I have one comment (accidentally double posted) near the beginning of the thread in question. That comment of mine is a response to a commenter (Loafing Oaf) who asks:

How come we often see Althouse commenting on Andrew Sullivan posts but we almost never see him posting replies? I like Andrew Sullivan, but I wish he'd engage in more back-and-forth between him and bloggers who disagree with him.

(Guess that one got answered.)

Althouse tends to post replies when bloggers post criticism of her. In recent years, a lot of the bigshot political bloggers have decided to just ignore debating people who disagree with them.

So I did engage with a commenter in that thread. I answered a specific question that was addressed to me, and that I happened to find interesting. What I don't do — and what Sullivan is wrong to infer — is monitor the hundreds of comments that come in every day. I don't systematically keep track of anything. Sometimes I read haphazardly, and I am a very busy person... a very busy person who is committed to free speech and to creating a place where people with different opinions can talk with/at each other.

Now, Sullivan is upset/annoyed that some homophobic things show up in the threads here, as if it says something about my blog. He doesn't have comments, but I'll bet if he did, he'd collect plenty of homophobic crap at his place too. Probably even more than shows up here. Maybe that's one reason he doesn't have comments. But I've chosen to open my place to comments, and I have a strong free speech policy.

And let me add that my writing on this blog has never included anything homophobic, that I have a long record of supporting gay rights, and that many of the commenters who hang out here here are gay men. There is no way that I am cuing readers to be homophobic, and I think people who care about free speech and vigorous debate should be careful not to impute such things to me.

ADDED: And check out the lame piling-on by the local blogger for the Isthmus, Kenneth Burns:

... Andrew Sullivan... quotes vile anti-gay comments on the blog of Ann Althouse, the Robert W. & Irma M. Arthur-Bascom Professor at the University of Wisconsin Law School. Althouse is teaching on the Madison campus this fall.

Indeed, Althouse has been teaching on the Madison campus since 1984.

These slurs appear quite literally under Althouse's name. If her policy is not to delete comments, that's her prerogative. But what purpose is served by leaving them up, other than to humilate gays like Sullivan and me and further curdle an already dismal political discourse? Is this prominent Madisonian proud to have these people as readers?

The purpose is free speech and vigorous debate.

AND: No one emailed me to point out offensive comments and request that I consider deleting them. I wasn't aware of any of them until I read Sullivan's post this morning. I did get email the other day asking me to delete some nonsense about Glenn Beck. (I didn't delete.) I might delete some truly vile things about gay people. I've deleted comments that contain the n-word. Try emailing me!

ALSO: Boy, a link from Sullivan — who has huge traffic — brings very few readers over here. I would like them to see what the real context is. Of course, a link from the Isthmus blog brings absolutely nothing. As expected.

If people quote the story about Sully in the Village Voice that was written by someone from the LEFT to take down Andrew Sullivan because he claimed to be a conservative, does that make them homophobic or, like other things in our culture, are you only *allowed* to use terms that you *own*?

I stopped reading Sullivan years ago, and won't give him the traffic, so let me ask: does he still not publish comments on his blog, just cite the most ass-kissing ones? That's his prerogative, but if he doesn't allow comments to be printed, he really has no place criticizing Althouse.

But enough about Andrew Sullivan. When will Levi Johnston complain about his treatment in the Althouse comments? He has a thick skin, but really... People might get the idea that he isn't a real hetero redneck.

No one really thinks you agree with all your comments. Cherry picking a comment you don't like, and blaming your critique for THAT instead of responding to their criticism at all, is a common way for jerks to deal with arguments they know they lose.

Sullivan admits he's being a total kook. He's 'going out on a limb' with no evidence, to make an extremely harsh, ugly, sexual, and nasty attack. He's doing it because he disagrees with Palin's politics. He thinks being extremely nasty and unfair is ok in that case.

He won't ever give a fair defense for that. He'll just point out random stuff, like some random nugget from your comments section that half the time is a moby anyway.

What I love is that he uses 'conservative' as an epithet. He dismisses your views on that basis.

you're not 'pro-torture' or 'conservative'. You just aren't a hard core partisan, and the cowards on both sides think that is relevant.

Kenneth Burns: If her policy is not to delete comments, that's her prerogative. But what purpose is served by leaving them up, other than to humilate gays like Sullivan and me and further curdle an already dismal political discourse?

Dude, look at how you spelled "humiliate."

Anything a commenter here does pales in comparison to what you're doing to yourself.

People who fret about commenters strike me the way that those who would complain about what bloggers choose to write about. Honestly, reasonable persons filter out nonsense and focus on the issues. When one sees foolishness just pass it by.

As if my comment name didn't give it away...I am gay. I am a gay man, a University of Wisconsin Law student, and former student of Ann Althouse. Do I hate homophobic remarks? Of course. I don't care if it's in the hallway of my school, on State Street, or on Prof. Althouse's blog; I find them at best tasteless and at worst despicable. However, when I read comments on this blog I would never assume Althouse was endorsing them, even without knowledge of her support for issues like gay marriage. Similarly, I don't think the law school is endorsing Don't Ask/Don't Tell when they allow (perhaps reluctantly) military recruiters, interviewers that will not hire me because I am gay, to interview in my school.

My comments on this blog are infrequent. However, I've never felt like this blog wasn't a place where I had the right to say what I wanted. Are my comments often challenged? Nearly every time. But that's part of why I choose to comment. I am annoyed by many of the comments on this blog, homophobia aside. However, my annoyance doesn't stem at all from the belief that Althouse is endorsing such views or that she hasn't censored things that I disagree with or that offend me.

A very high brow criticism indeed Andrew.The banning of the free expression of opinions that the homosexual male lifestyle is less the a perfect way to live is a goal already attained in Canada and Europe. We Americans will still cling to our free speech, but we apologise for any offense to you and your high brow husband.

And bashing Sullivan for being a pervert creep is NOT homophobia. Bashing gays in general, or gays you know nothing about, over some false stereotype, is absolutely bigotted.

But Andrew Sullivan is disgusting. We know about what that guy has done in his life. He not only uses drugs and put up that 'milky loads' advertisement (one of the most disgusting things on the internet, and something no one should seek out for laughs), but he uses connections to get out of criminal convictions, and spreads disease.

He's a bad person. Gay or straight. He pretends to be on a high horse and has preached so often about the irresponsibility and corruption he happily engages in. It's no surprise he bashes Althouse for not deleting ugly comments, when he's ultimately setting up a smokescreen for his own much uglier comments.

He's interesting because he's still in the Atlantic and MSNBC will call him a conservative. He knows he's a complete fraud.

Who's anti-gay? I'm gay. But I don't see any reason not to mock Sullivan's heterophobia.

And by the way, that fucker doesn't only discriminate against the straights. If you're a fat or fem faggot, Andy won't squeeze your milky loads with his raw muscle glutes. It's true - at least that's what he said on his barebackcity.com profile.

And let me add that my writing on this blog has never including anything homophobic, that I have a long record of supporting gay rights...

This is what is known as wrestling with pigs...with the usual results.

Sullivan has become a waste of carbon, trumpeting rumors that TMZ would be embarrassed to float. The "anti-gay" slur is the only card he has left.

You've been in Madison too long. The correct response to "You're homophobic!" is not to whine that some of your best friends are gay. It's to smile, nod, and note that again, Sullivan has responded to an argument with ad-hominem rant.

Talk about lameness. The easiest way to get a comment deleted by the divine Ms. Althouse is to criticize her directly--especially if that criticism includes calling her a conservative. I know that from experience.

On the other hand if you want to spread the most vile Aryan Nation Eugenicist nonsense, this is the place to come. Cedarford is a practically revered institution. I have never seen Ann offer the weakest criticism of his anti-Semitic, racist and homophobic nonsense. Yet she is perfectly willing to call me an asshole just because I disagree with her interpretation of a political ad.

When a liberal pretends to be a white supremacist, they are following a well documented technique known as 'mobying'. Why should Althouse engage that level of troll?

She's never posted on why the holocaust is wrong, and I missed her post about how eating rat poison is a bad idea. that doesn't mean she can be accused of supporting those views. Some crap is so obviously wrong that it's just patronizing to explain it.

Sullivan goes after the nasty comments, and ignores the better ones. Makes him look better, by making Althouse look worse. Also saves him energy (hey, he's green!); it's much easier to repeat a nasty criticism as if to say this is the best the adversary can offer, as if the original point is unassailable.

This isn't behavior restricted to Sullivan. To some extent, we all do this: we judge the other side by its worst components. It's more natural for us to respond to inciteful criticism than insightful criticism.

wv: commo - what a serious-minded communist call himself to distinguish from the more amateurish "commie"

I think you're lying about having your comments deleted. You come across as totally insane. If Althouse really did delete something you said, it was probably absolutely awful. I've seen the stuff she leaves up... it's very, very harsh sometimes.

Of course not moron, it was deleted. Her lame excuse for deleting it was I used bad language in it. Read some of Titus' posts and tell me, what possible language could I have used that was beyond the pale?

Although I am sure words to the effect of "Ann Althouse is a conservative" is the extremely foul language that got the post deleted.

Sullivan: But look at these comments, which Althouse engages with and certainly doesn't remove. I have a thick skin but really...

Dude, you basically prostituted yourself to the Obama administration so you wouldn't have to worry about some legal problems. If you are concerned about what other people think of you, you've done more damage to yourself than anything someone here could say.

You didn't have anything deleted, did you? If you did, you'd remember exactly what was said. I had a commented deleted elsewhere, and I recall what it was. If this happens enough to you that you don't even know what it was about, that is an indication that you are a really awful person.

You keep making grandiose claims with no evidence. You can't even remember what your deleted comment was about! But you're insane with rage enough about it to go on and on for hours. You really don't remember what you said?

Freder Frederson: The easiest way to get a comment deleted by the divine Ms. Althouse is to criticize her directly--especially if that criticism includes calling her a conservative. I know that from experience.

Dude, this entire post is about criticism of Althouse. Althouse is literally posting them herself for all her readers to see.

I have never used a racial slur or made a threat against anyone on this or any other blog. Obviously you have not been reading this blog long enough to know that I never use racial slurs or threaten anyone.

As I said it was a while ago and it was a personal insult against Ann--most likely in the context of torture policy.

At this point, all one can do is laugh. Laugh out loud and laugh heartily at Little Miss Sullivan's near maudlin indignation at being commented on in another blog. Seriously, what does he expect was going to happen, that people would stand around and nod in affirmation to his lunacy? Why do you suppose he doesn't want to set up a comments section at his blog, because he feels that he would end up being mired in defending his idiotic positions on a constant basis. Nevermind the fact that he gets emails in either support or derision at his never-ended cluelessness on a myriad of subjects, but that he feels haughty enough to do something called dissent of the day, where he plucks an one email and posts it based on his musings and the other emails go into the dust bin of the internet.

Hey Andrew, stop whining and be a man for once. You spend more time bitching like a little kid about who said mean things about instead of actually proving your idiocy. You want to know why you get homosexual goofs on you about what you write? It's because you've taken a position of superiority in pretended to speak for a multitude of people that you think share the same views as you do. There may be some, but they are just as mentally vacuous as you are. That's why you get goofed on and that's why I especially enjoy goofing on you. You deserve it for the tripe you pass off as meaningful and deep thinking when in reality it's mired in conspiratorial nonsense.

Homosexuals want to have it both ways (is that a homophobic pun?): straights (an intentionally insulting term) are to take the homosexual agenda, including the oxymoronic homosexual marriage, seriously, because homosexuals are no longer marginal and must not be treated as such.

But when heterosexuals dare criticize homosexual marriage or, god forbid, make fun of it, that's homophobic. Why? Because homosexuals are marginal, oppressed and discriminated against and therefore must not be mocked. They must be protected from the normal give and take.

Dude, this entire post is about criticism of Althouse. Althouse is literally posting them herself for all her readers to see.

Dude, Ann is such a narcissist, she thinks she is "cruelly neutral" about such important topics as torture by the U.S. government when she is obviously not. She gets all bent out of shape because she thinks she isn't conservative or doesn't display a conservative bias in her blog when she obviously does.

Cedarford is a practically revered institution. I have never seen Ann offer the weakest criticism of his anti-Semitic, racist and homophobic nonsense.

Your obession with Cedarford is about as bad as Sully's over Palin's birth canal. Hey Freder try this when you see a Cedarford post. Pretend that Cedarford is a Muslim cause when you really come down to it, neither one's position of Joooos and homosexuals are really that far apart. (Cedar is more moderate) Considering how often you come riding Saladin's horse in defense of the religion of pieces it should make his comments more palatable for you.

Andrew Sullivan's increasing use of ad hominem attacks, along with his swerve to the political left, has made him a mirror image of his arch rival Michelangelo Signorile. Perhaps the only difference between them is that Sullivan is far more willing to appeal to his readers' pity about his HIV status, immigration status, and sexual preference.

As a self-styled public intellectual, his editorial persona is that of a real schnorrer; a graceless, whinging lout. (I sometimes wonder if his unrelenting negativity relates to his being British -- they aren't the most optimistic people in the world.)

Other comments here about Sullivan's unwillingness to brook free speech in his blog are on point. He fancies his blog to be a conversation, but it's not. Comments are only posted if they make him look good. If his "Dissent of the Day" didn't give him the patina of a broad-minded individual, he wouldn't post those genteel little squibs at all.

Is he really trying to bring an administrative shitstorm on Ann Althouse? Who knows. If Sullivan gets called on it, he's sure to deny it. His M.O. is well known and getting more tired by the day.

I think he should go back to England and spend his remaining years teaching English composition to freshmen at a second-rate university. He's pretty much jumped the shark as a blogger.

Sullivan is an absolute POS. His weird and disgusting obsession with Sarah Palin's child deserves the most scorn possible.

Scorn against Sullivan is almost certainly going to involve some people mocking his sexual choices, escpecially his ad about "raw glutes".

I boycott The Atlantic completely, not just Sullivan. I did peek at the Burns' blog, the quoted comments are pretty mild as anti-homosexual comments go. I agree that Sulllivan is just using this as a "look a shiny coin" distraction from his own idiocy.

lem, I may not care that Sullivan uses drugs, but I sure do care that he uses connections to get out of sure-fire convictions. He's a sleaze. He's an example of government corruption. That's why he defends the administration... he's part of the inner circle of criminals.

But what purpose is served by leaving them up, other than to humilate gays like Sullivan and me and further curdle an already dismal political discourse?

Why is some random dude who doesn’t even visit this blog “humiliated” by comments quite obviously directed at Andrew Sullivan himself because of specific things he has written that are insane? Lame. Some people just need to grow up.

The Althouse comments speak for themselves, at least Sully linked to them. But hey, Sullivan's Palin obsession speaks for itself too. And he is obsessed with this whole Trig Truther nonsense.

Are there conservatives and republicans obsessed with red herrings? Sure there are. I am not buying the Obama Birther theories. But Sullivan likes to portray himself as a serious commentator and then posts these stupid "Sarah Palin did not birth Trig links" months later with sly comments from himself like "I don't know, just asking questions..." Right. He is still stinging from the rebuke he got from The Atlantic over this during the election.

People make fun of Andrew not so much because he is gay (although some people are homophobic) but because it is fun to make fun of Andrew Sullivan. And Sullivan wants to promote this, becuase I think he likes firing up the controversy and ginning up page hits. But for some reason Sarah Palin drives him crazy. It is obvious.

As for Sarah Palin, I doubt she will be the GOP nominee. Not in 2012. But I look forward to her being around, if only to drive Andrew a little bit more bat shit crazy.

But you bragged recently about how well you can handle the hundreds of emails you claim to get everyday. And you have mocked others, like Jeffrey Rosen, who claimed busyness as the reason he did not respond with immediacy to whatever you posted about him.

And why not be honest: you definitely delete comments. And you definitiely weigh in on things.

The fact is that you have created a nasty vipers nest here. And you call it your "community." And then you distance yourself from it whenever anyone takes a close look at the nasty stink that is your "community of commenters."

Man up, Althouse. Oh right, you just command others to do that--and never do it yourself.

People are going to go out of their way to vote for her. I am sure people will also go out of their way to vote against her, and there's a lot of time for her to look awful or wonderful before we vote, but I think she's got a tremendous advantage.

Sadly, the middle vote for pretty people they 'feel good' about. I think Palin can tap into that when running against Obama. I also think a lot of republicans want to send a message to the beltway. And then there's the people who want to vote for Palin because she makes people like sullivan act like assholes.

Kev asked: I stopped reading Sullivan years ago, and won't give him the traffic, so let me ask: does he still not publish comments on his blog, just cite the most ass-kissing ones?

Sullivan posts a "Dissent of the Day" nearly every day. Some of them are very effective critiques of him, his thinking, and/or his tone. He published quite a bit of reader criticism regarding his interest in the false pregnancy rumors.

She said she could handle hundreds of emails by reading the first line of them.

Yeah, she probably deletes death threats and racial slurs when she sees them or gets emails about it.

'She weighs in on stuff' != she agrees with every comment.

sullivan saw a really accurate criticism of his awful behavior, and was nonresponsive to it. he found something ugly because he either typed it or searched for it, and it's irrelevant. Sullivan is a criminal; he writes things favorable to a government that cancels his legal problems; he writes horrible and untrue things about Palin. His 'defense' is pathetic, and you're very mistaken to take it seriously.

The fact is that you have created a nasty vipers nest here. And you call it your "community." And then you distance yourself from it whenever anyone takes a close look at the nasty stink that is your "community of commenters."

Amen. This passive-aggressive behavior about comments is pure bunk. These aren't just random commenters but some of her regulars who revel in how nasty and bigoted they can be. While at times this place can be extremely interesting, more often and not we get vitrol that might make Hot Air blush.

Freder...It is a buzz word lately to call anyone who defends their positions publicly a "Narcissist". You would be helped by doing a study of the real narcissism personality disorder. The easiest quick definition of a narcissist personality is "the exact opposite of Ann Althouse". A true narcissist is unable to show empathy because they are frightened people hiding inside fake actors skills to be seen as something that they are not, but this excellent act is used to control another who is a supplier of narcissist's act by reacting to the con job as they are supposed to react or else. The second the target of a narcissist has a free thought of their own and expresses opposition to the on going charade, the narcissist will cut them off and attack them to destroy them in a cruel way no matter how much that person has done for them before. The narcissist then moves on to a new target and a new act. Althouse uses a quick wit and strong arguments, but she has never cut off anyone or cruelly attacked someone with false storylines about them. Then again there is the case of Andrew Sullivan.

Very few liberals ever advance into uncomfortable territory so it is no wonder that little traffic would come from Sullivan. His obsessions of Palin and torture suggest some very real problems that I hope he is getting some help with.

traditionalguy, that is a pretty interesting explanation of that personality order. I agree Ann Althouse is no narcissist. Ann is gracious and it takes quite a lot to fire her up. And when she does get fired up, it is justified. I mean, Sullivan called this a torture blog? How high was he that day?

I do not care about Andrew being gay. But it is funny how he is obviously smitten with Levi Johnson and loves dishin the shit on Palin. So since he dishes out the personal, people dish it right back at him.

Despite his love the beagle, Sullivan has the temperment of a minature schnauzer. The small psychotic rat-dog hybrid that bark as if the world was ending when dried leaves blow by.

ricpic...You are one of my favorite commenters because you mix good humour with great insights. The day of Sullivan's and NOW's and ACORNS cheap victimology cons may be losing their power as we are all now faced with becoming real victims of the world's current economic manipulations.

Thanks, tradguy. But Bissage, that tease, is still my favorite. What kind of nonsense is that, where he tells us there are things he's done that he's not proud of...and then fails to deliver on the details?!

Althouse has a point that until Sullivan opens up his blog to comments he hardly has any standing whatsoever to criticize someone else's comment section. I believe he is the only Atlantic blogger with comments turned off.

Sullivan should have gone for the more humorous comments which would have included mine, I'm sure. The comments seem more anti-Sullivan than anti-gay.

People mock characteristics of others. I'm mocked because of my extreme handsomeness, intellect and sexual prowess. I don't see that mocking as attacks on all good-looking, smart, studs. Sullivan's jealous because studs like me can make Sarah Palin happy and he can't.

As to Cedarford, he has his role as a fount of information on many topics; however he will suddenly raise his Dr Strangelove's saluting arm occaisionally when he smells a Jew, or what is incomprehensible to him, a Jew lover, and then he turns out reams of disinformation for a while until his arm comes back down. I actually like Cedarford's personality, but he appears to be commited to his outdated and dangerous belief system. He is probably hooked by his pride, like John Birchers are hooked by their pride, in knowing secret inside stuff that no one else knows, like freemason stuff out of Ken Brown's books on the Knights Templar Order.

Althouse has a point that until Sullivan opens up his blog to comments he hardly has any standing whatsoever to criticize someone else's comment section. I believe he is the only Atlantic blogger with comments turned off.

"Cedarford is a practically revered institution. I have never seen Ann offer the weakest criticism of his anti-Semitic, racist and homophobic nonsense."

You know what irks me about this sort of comment? Cedarford doesn't hurl epithets. He presents purported facts and puts together arguments. No one takes the trouble to refute his facts, they just gasp and point and call him an anti-Semite. It's a big bore and I'm not deleting any of that. If C is so wrong, say why he's wrong. Address his substantive arguments instead of name-calling. He's not name-calling. His critics are.

I agree with those who feel that this sort of faux outrage is the beginning attempts to silence bloggers that promote free speech; especially sites that allow criticism of "protected" groups; groups that include the current administration.

There is also the fact that here at Althouse there are way more respectful, eloquent dare I say brilliant commenters (like myself) that to point to a few bad apples misses the whole idea of a free marketplace if ideas.

Has anyone followed the travails of Mark Steyn and the magasine that quoted a truism from his book. They were charged in three courts with offending Moslims in a system where the state prosecutor's office was in cahoots with the Sole Plaintiff in cases brought and was awarded any cash damages, and where there was no jury trial or even basic due process. Is that what the Marxists plan for the internet soon? That system was put into Canadian law for the same reasons Sullivan demands comment deletions.

Both you and Sarah Palin are good-looking women. I mean, you’re attractive, young — relatively young — women who other women can identify with.

Andrew does not open comments because he knows how much crap he will catch, although with out going all Little Green Footballs in deleting everything that he disagrees with, it would be good to have comments. Glenn Reynolds too. I stopped reading Commentaryevery often without its comments, it was just not as fun.

Sounds like Althouse and others are glad you're here now to push back against Cedarford's views... you're just being asked to take his arguments on in a logical way instead of just linking him to the guy who shot up a museum.

I don't even know what he's claiming... if he's claiming the holocaust didn't happen, then he's an asshole and I would also insult him. But the challenge issued to you is to take his arguments and respond in kind. That's asking for better pushback, in other words.

To comment anything sullivan writes about you have to e mail him. God knows what happens after that. But Sullivan to appear evenhanded about the things he writes, will publish "THE DISSENT OF THE DAY". It drives me crazy he does not allow comments. I don't expect any blogger with a decent following to monitor their comment section nor do i care if they read the comments posted on their site. I like to read the comments to gauge reaction to the issue at hand and how my thoughts correspond with others. Sullivan is a pompous ass and if he weren't gay, his site would generate far less interest than it does. Since Sullivan loves to trade off his image as a gay intellectual who is Catholic and Conservative (by his definition anyway) it gives him an air of intellectual unpredictability of someone who is both a victim and yet not a whiner when in fact that's all he does. His Palin obession is border line ocd on a subject that has less credibility than the birther movement.

Sullivan reminds me of a crazed street person with a megaphone. The neighborhood would just be much more pleasant if his voice was no louder than the rest. I don't understand why Ann and others, knowing full well his unworthiness, keeps handing him the megaphone.

"But it's silly to criticize the blog host if commenters choose to go down that path."

By no means do I think that Ann should be considered responsible for the hateful things written on her blog but it is fair to point out that she does cultivate it. After all she for weeks advertised her blog as the place for immoderate speech. She also pushes topics that are designed to get her Althouse Hillbillies lathered up in a frenzy. Is it unfair of me to point out this obvious fact?

L E Lee...Getting lathered up in a frenzy is hard work. You are never any help in getting us red meat eaters to our frenzied climaxes. All you do is find fault and say mean things about us. Are you really that guy riding along and whispering into the Conqueror's ear during A Roman Triumph? And you a descendant of R E Lee.

And check out the lame piling-on by the local blogger for the Isthmus,..

That is a lame piling on over there. Almost a chilling call for censorship and investigation.

Once upon a time the Isthmus had a real writer of interest on their staff, who wrote under the pseudonym of Ursula (the original one not the subsequent fake one). Hell I was probably the only person ever to have a snailmail subscription in Switzerland.

I often get the impression that some Isthmus staffer comments here on a regular basis as one of those diehard leftist polemists.

Could it be that that someone besides Sullivan is just a wee bit jealous?

@madawaskan-I find Cedarford too complex to dismiss out of hand- he does add something to the mix. But as an admirer of yours, I would have spoken up too had I seen what you described here. Did this actually occur here a while ago or was it elsewhere?

I see many of the conservative commenters here jeer at Cedarford, repeatedly, for his "the JOOS are to blame" and similar excesses. I see no reason to engage him at all. He's nuts. That doesn't mean he isn't eloquent at times, it just means there's always a ludicrous, frothy rant waiting to happen. There's no onus on anyone to take that seriously or respond with logic.

It has been across many blogs....he has refined himself over the years-the guy is not stupid.

I'm trying to fire up my memory banks-Richard Fernandez a blogger who I've never seen called stupid....

Anyways in the hey-day of that blog-there were many very intelligent commenters that tried to deal with C-4-in fact that nickname was derived from what was the result of a thread if you tried to "play with Cedarford."

It is funny that most of the conservative posters here seem to blithely wave off all of the vile quotes that Sullivan links to but if I write "Althouse Hillbillies" many of these same right wing Jethros get all lathered up about THAT!

It is funny that most of the conservative posters here seem to blithely wave off all of the vile quotes that Sullivan links to but if I write "Althouse Hillbillies" many of these same right wing Jethros get all lathered up about THAT!

The unfortunate aspect of this so-called feud is that even after the Twerp is deported to England or to wherever, he'll probably have access to the net and thus continue to be granted a paycheck from his sugar honey / editor.

It is funny that most of the conservative posters here seem to blithely wave off all of the vile quotes that Sullivan links to but if I write "Althouse Hillbillies" many of these same right wing Jethros get all lathered up about THAT!

Let's pretend, for a second, that Andrew Sullivan isn't being completely unfair and dishonest about our hostess's behavior.

Let's pretend, for the sake of argument, that the Althouse comments are nothing but wall-to-wall homophobia of the sort one would expect to find at a Fred Phelps site.

In fact, let's pretend that even as we speak, every single person who ever read an Althouse post favorably is sitting at home in their PJs, feverishly typing homophobic remarks with one hand while thumping a Bible with the other.

None of that would change the fact that Andrew Sullivan is totally freakin' insane on the Palin baby issue. Even if everybody who disagreed with him was a homophobe, he would still be wrong.

So who gives a rat's patootie if the comments here are homophobic or not. It has nothing to do with the fact that Sullivan's a loon. Tell Andy not to try changing the subject.

I actually know Andrew (kind of). We were both in Cambridge at the same time. He was incredibly arrogant then. I met him through friends and went to some of the same parties. He was handsome and much younger at the time. I was this skinny, shy, sheltered kid from the Midwest. While he was a Phd student. He loved being the "gay conservative". This was before the internets and The New Republic was a big deal.

Since then that time he moved to DC but we see each other every year in Ptown. I don't read his blog but I did have a couple of really enjoyable conversations with him over the past few years. We have both aged and in person he is much nicer and more humble than he was many years ago.

I don't read any other blogs but Althouse.

I know most of you find this hard to believe but I have been deleted many times as well. One time for using the word "felch".